Fageroos v. Richardson

Background

Richard Fageroos, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Shelby Richardson and other Minnesota Sex Offender Program officials and the Department of Human Services. He alleged constitutional violations arising from his 75-day confinement in the High Security Area after he refused to move to a newly assigned room. He also alleged that his mail was withheld during that confinement.

Fageroos asserted procedural-due-process and substantive-due-process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Fourth Amendment claims. The case came before the court after Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. Because Fageroos objected, the district court reviewed the recommendation independently.

Claims and analysis

The court agreed that claims seeking money damages from defendants in their official capacities were barred by state sovereign immunity. Because that ruling was based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court modified the recommendation so that those claims were dismissed without prejudice.

The court also dismissed Fageroos’s procedural-due-process claims against defendants in their individual capacities for failure to state a claim. Regarding the High Security Area, the court noted that Fageroos alleged only that he was not out of behavioral control as required by Minnesota Sex Offender Program policy. The court found that he did not allege that he lacked notice, an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to appeal. His complaint stated that he received verbal and written notice and declined to leave the area because he refused to move to the new room.

The court likewise found that the complaint did not state a substantive-due-process claim. It concluded that keeping Fageroos in the High Security Area for 75 days without mail, while offering him the opportunity each day to leave by accepting the new room assignment, was not conduct so extreme as to shock the conscience. The court also emphasized that the length of confinement resulted from Fageroos’s refusal to leave.

The court dismissed the Fourth Amendment claims for failure to state a claim. It found no alleged facts showing that the initial placement in the High Security Area departed from accepted practice or was not based on professional judgment. It further concluded that Fageroos voluntarily remained there after being allowed to leave, so that decision did not support an unreasonable-seizure claim. The court also stated that temporary mail withholding from confined persons has consistently been held constitutional and that, even if the mail restriction implicated Fourth Amendment property rights, defendants would have qualified immunity because the asserted violation was not clearly established.

Fageroos raised additional proposed claims in his objection, including a claim that he was entitled to a hearing before placement in the High Security Area and claims under the First Amendment concerning sending and receiving mail and retaliation. The court said a plaintiff generally cannot add claims through an objection. It further held that, even construing the objection as an implied request to amend the complaint, amendment would be futile because the proposed claims would not state a claim.

Separate objection by defendants

Defendants also appealed a magistrate judge’s order striking their first motion to dismiss. They later filed another motion to dismiss that clarified it was brought for all defendants in both their individual and official capacities. The district court held that this change made the appeal moot, meaning the court could no longer provide effective relief on that issue. The court therefore overruled defendants’ objection as moot and did not decide whether accepting service meant that the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office represented all defendants in both capacities.

Disposition

The court accepted the Report and Recommendation with additional analysis, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismissed Fageroos’s complaint without prejudice. It overruled defendants’ objection to the earlier order as moot. The order was signed by United States District Judge Eric C. Tostrud.